Tosca, those prices sound good, but I have never seen anything like that advertised?
Are you perhaps part of a religious organization who assists with the payment for the trained counsellors?

Some places even use untrained 'chaplains' to assist people with their problems.
I wonder exactly who will be paid this $200 at the end of the day?
One doesn't need to be religiously orientated to give good advice to others.

I would hope the Government would insist on properly trained counsellors, and that they also deal with unmarried couples as well as gay couples, and not just push the usual 'married in the eyes of god' barrow...

Really?

This is where my tax is being spent? It seems that Abbott is isn't just a smeghead: he's an fiscally incompetent smeghead.

Isn't the main point of difference between smeghead party delta and smeghead party gamma supposed to be that one of the smeghead parties is fiscally responsible?

I think it might be time to start up an Australian Monster Raving Loony Party: I'm seriously starting to believe that a Monster Raving Loony would be a better PM than smeghead delta/gamma.

Happy Invasion Day,

Tony

< I thought Raw Mustard was joking when he said that Kevin Andrews was involved in the marriage counselling business, but when I checked Wikipedia's scary biography of this bloke, I realized it was true! ( Sorry Raw Mustard : ) >

It's OK, Susie. We all get it wrong sometimes :~)

Either many couples (or one half) have some how raised the attention of parliament of their deep concerns of forth coming nuptials, and the government has so quickly responded. Which sounds like rubbish to me. Usually public concerns are highlighted somewhere and generally result in inaction. Abbott and his little cronies sound, and are acting as crooked as a dogs hind leg!

From my reading of what I've seen I don't think the case has been made successfully that Andrews or his family are still in the business. Has anyone seen any credible material that suggests that he or his wife are still getting income from marriage guidance or anything close enough to justify the accusations of conflict of interest.

My impression was that they were in the business but got out of it after the election (or possibly ministerial appointment) was confirmed. If thats not the case I'm quite willing to change that view.

Onthebeach, my point was about the ham fisted harm the government does in its involvement post separation rather than as a cause of separation. I probably suspect that people are far better off without the kind of partners who leave for reasons that can easily be blamed on the government. Perhaps some much lacking modeling of personal accountability, honesty, self sacrifice and loyalty from those who aspire to be leaders.

The point that I'd like to see engaged with is reducing the harm to children from what is often a very adversarial and winner (or the lawyers) take all system. A system that raises the stakes of child residency so high for parents that the children become something to be fought over. A system that uses the idea of chilrens best interest to justify behaviors that often work strongly against those very interests.

Not trying to side track the discussion to much from the original issue, rather to highlight that I think that's an area where Andrews could put some focus but based on what I've seen is disinterested.

R0bert

It is overwhelmingly women who initiate divorce. Why?

No B.S. anyone about traditional roles - many of the pairings would have been entered into since the 'equal' Family Law introduction, rather than before.